On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> wrote:
> From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>>> The user in control of a super block should be allowed to freeze> and thaw it. Relax the restrictions on the FIFREEZE and FITHAW> ioctls to require CAP_SYS_ADMIN in s_user_ns.
Why is this required for unprivileged fuse?
Fuse doesn't support freeze, so this seems to make no sense in the
context of this patchset.
Thanks,
Miklos

Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 22, 2017 at 3:32 PM, Dongsu Park <dongsu@kinvolk.io> wrote:>> From: Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@canonical.com>>>>> The user in control of a super block should be allowed to freeze>> and thaw it. Relax the restrictions on the FIFREEZE and FITHAW>> ioctls to require CAP_SYS_ADMIN in s_user_ns.>> Why is this required for unprivileged fuse?>> Fuse doesn't support freeze, so this seems to make no sense in the> context of this patchset.
This isn't required to support fuse. It is a relaxation in permissions
so it isn't strictly necessary for anything.
Until just recently Seth and I work working through the vfs looking at
what we need in general for unprivileged mounts. With fuse as our focus
but we were not limiting ourselves to fuse.
I have been putting off relaxation of permissions like this because they
are not necessary for safety. But in general they do make sense.
In practice I think all we need to worry about for fuse is the last 4 patches.
Eric